Bondith: Don't you Americans have some sort of Constitutional guarantee about being tried more than once for the same crime?

Mistrials for one allow charges to be re-filed

I hope the jurors don't ever see Hot Kinky Jo. I've seen a few of her videos and am still trying to figure out how she does it.

SevenizGud: How is it that OSHA doesn't apply? Engaging in sex acts with bodily waste? How can that not be forbidden by OSHA, whether it is "obscene" or not?

And it isn't the day America died. That day was Kelo v. New London.

...because the actors were not using REAL bodily waste, dumbass.

If there's music/talk on the radio I don't like, I don't tune in.
If there's a show or topic on tv that I don't like, I change the channel.
If I have a dvd in front of me of something I might find offensive, I don't play it.
Websites that contain topics I might find offensive, I don't type them in.
If someone is discussing something with me I find offensive, I change the subject or walk away.

fark that jury.
/Oh and fark that jury.

Bondith: Federal prosecutors had to try Isaacs three times before winning a conviction.

Don't you Americans have some sort of Constitutional guarantee about being tried more than once for the same crime?

Not if the first trials ended in hung juries or they found something new to charge him with.

/it will be thrown out on appeal

Hey, I agree with the sentiment but the shait jokes are getting a little bit much. I mean, sure, Reason's a terrible website and all but... oh, I see the article involves poop. Carry on.

borg: theMightyRegeya: Here's one for you folks who voted Republican because freedoms

The United States Department of Justice is run by President Obama & Democratic appointees and has been since 2009.

Give it up. They're still blaming bush for a lot of stuff; no way has Obama done enough in 4 years to warrant anyone questioning him.

I'm serious, he hasn't done shiat.

spman: I'm not saying anything about it being gross. I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely.

So is auto-erotic asphyxiation. So is visiting CiCi's Pizza. So is having sexual intercourse with a stranger. These are all things which are unsafe, even though there are certain precautions available that could increase your chances of surviving them. They still can't be "done safely". What is your stance on these three activities? Should they be prohibited by law?

spman: If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick,

Johnny Knoxville rolled down a hill inside a filled porta-potty. He inadvertently ate some. He's still alive.

spman: Find me a scenario where you are eating human shiat and not getting ill, and I will agree it should be legal.

Now you're biasing your requirements. I'm not going to voluntarily eat human waste under any circumstances, not even to win an internet argument.

spman: Do you believe that if a man is so desperate to provide for his family, and finds someone willing to pay them enough to last the rest of their lives, and all the man has to do is shoot himself on camera? It doesn't matter if he dies or not, just shoot himself on camera, not in the arm or in the foot, maybe in the gut or the chest where you reasonably stand a chance of hitting some vital organs. Should this be legal?

To answer this question, I'll ask you one: Do you believe that your body is your property, to do with as you decide, or is it the property of some other entity, such as some form of government or "society"? In case you don't want to consider that question, then yes, I believe that activity should be perfectly legal, and I believe that even if perfectly legal, it is extremely unlikely to ever happen. Similarly, I believe prostitution should be legal, and so should playing in the NFL (which is extremely tough on the body).

The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: ReapTheChaos: yet I've seen guys elbow deep into some sluts twat delicate flower

Yikes man. But I'm sure you are respectful to all the women in your life.

Fixed. Happy?!

Oh how the Commanders of the Galactica have fallen...

zekeburger: Hot Kinky Jo

Do not Google Hot Kinky Jo.

Don't do it.

Jesus, this is piss on the constitution month or something?

MrTuffPaws: Jesus, this is piss on the constitution month or something?

Where have you been for the past 50 years?

HotWingAgenda: The Short Bald Guy from Benny Hill: ReapTheChaos: yet I've seen guys elbow deep into some sluts twat delicate flower

Yikes man. But I'm sure you are respectful to all the women in your life.

Fixed. Happy?!

No no no, you got me all wrong, I'm trying to make sure that Fark remains a safe place for misogyny.

casual disregard: Pincy: The obscene videos included a video approximately two hours in length of a female engaging in sex acts involving human bodily waste and a video one hour and 37 minutes in length of a female engaged in sex acts with animals.

Animals can't consent. Fark this guy if he thinks that's art.

Plants can't consent. Animals have brains.

I never put one in my cat, but I promise you we can communicate on some level. Likewise I can convince a deaf man without knowing ASL.

What the fark is wrong with you people??

A cat is fine too. The tough part is proving it gave consent

log_jammin: casual disregard: sharia law.

cause the two are exactly the same.

Yes? Find me a Muslim country where documenting the consumption of human feces is not illegal.

I'm not extolling the virtues of documenting the consumption of human feces.In fact I find the act intolerably abhorrent. I just can't stand for the idea of illegal speech. I take the side of Voltaire: We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. Because fark tyranny and fark control.

casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

You actually believe that America is/was a FREE society? Are you that naive? Please, for the love of God, please define FREEDOM in a way that makes any sense at all, then apply it to what you see around you. This is not a free society. It isn't even a freedom-loving society. Hasn't been in many generations, if ever.

Fade2black: borg: theMightyRegeya: Here's one for you folks who voted Republican because freedoms

The United States Department of Justice is run by President Obama & Democratic appointees and has been since 2009.

Give it up. They're still blaming bush for a lot of stuff; no way has Obama done enough in 4 years to warrant anyone questioning him.

I'm serious, he hasn't done shiat.

So...I take it you two actually think Obama fired all of the Bush era Regent 'I majored in Jesus' University justice department hires? Man, that must be rough for them. 4 years of 'school' to only get to work for 4 years when usually it's all but impossible to lose a government job short of snorting coke off a dead baby. All that planning, and all those speeches about 'working from the inside to return this once great nation to it's Christian roots' gone to waste.

/idiots.

no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

You actually believe that America is/was a FREE society? Are you that naive? Please, for the love of God, please define FREEDOM in a way that makes any sense at all, then apply it to what you see around you. This is not a free society. It isn't even a freedom-loving society. Hasn't been in many generations, if ever.

I concede that we are not now free.

USA, however, should be free, and we would be free if not for the relentless moralizers.

To me, freedom is chosen action which does not prohibit the same in my neighbor. Maybe I'm an awful farking liberal, but that's the kind of life I wish I could have. It's the kind of life I wish you could have, too.

casual disregard: I take the side of Voltaire: We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. Because fark tyranny and fark control.

That was actually a typo. He meant to write, We have a natural right to make use of our penis as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard. Voltaire was railing against the misanthropic regime of cunnilingus, and the threat of STDs.

Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Mock26: Dear Jurors,

Ever hear of the FIRST AMENDMENT?

I'm pretty sure they have. And they doubtless got a schooling in the current jurisprudence regarding obscenity regarding community standards. That jurisprudence badly needs to be revisited to account for the internet. But I can hardly fault the jury for not resetting the standard.

Unfortunately for both the prosecutors and those who would like to see the current precedents revisited the jury also heard testimony that the defendant kept his actors drugged up on coke. That has nothing to do with whether this was obscene under the law or whether anything should be obscene but is exactly the kind of thing that gets juries riled up and willing to convict someone of whatever is available to them. This will be overturned on those narrow grounds.

Why isn't jury shopping illegal?

Meh. Everyone knows swap.avi was better.

James F. Campbell: Manfred J. Hattan: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

Meh. It'll get overturned on appeal. What will be interesting is to see how many people post in this thread defending this guys rights who also believe that his company should have been prosecuted if it had publicly endorsed someone for president. Those are the people who will make us a non-free society.

Still defending Citizens United, I see.

Nah, just using it to identify idiots and people hostile to speech. It's as close to a perfect test as can be imagined.

log_jammin: casual disregard: Yes? Find me a Muslim country where documenting the consumption of human feces is not illegal.

I said nothing about documenting the consumption of human feces. I said "I'm ok with bestiality being illegal."

Your attempt to claim that's the same as supporting sharia law is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

LemSkroob: Nice. I liked how they kept jury-shopping till they got one they liked.

Its funny, you are only allowed one chance to defend yourself, but you can be dragged into a courtroom over and over again. All the prosecutor needs is to win one game, and they have the series, but the defense needs to have a perfect record and win every game.

Of course. That's the "guilty until proven innocent" standard, intended to apply emotional judgment instead of rational judgment. Used in crimes that aren't actually illegal, any sexual accusations whatsoever, fights in which the "wrong" person wins, and anything else that warrants a trial by media because the law isn't bowing to popular demand.

casual disregard: EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

You actually believe that America is/was a FREE society? Are you that naive? Please, for the love of God, please define FREEDOM in a way that makes any sense at all, then apply it to what you see around you. This is not a free society. It isn't even a freedom-loving society. Hasn't been in many generations, if ever.

I concede that we are not now free.

USA, however, should be free, and we would be free if not for the relentless moralizers.

To me, freedom is chosen action which does not prohibit the same in my neighbor. Maybe I'm an awful farking liberal, but that's the kind of life I wish I could have. It's the kind of life I wish you could have, too.

Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

Two Adamas, one sandblaster.

dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

Obviously. More of a cat person, right?

/sorry

dababler: Why isn't jury shopping illegal?

Heh. I'll give the government this much - they weren't jury shopping. This case has been as weird as the films the guy sold. The first mistrial came because the judge was found to have funny YouTube videos on his work PC, one of which had a donkey with a hard-on chasing a guy with his pants down, which video was inaccurately described at the time as beastiality. That made for some decent Fark threads back in the day.

Manfred J. Hattan: Nah, just using it to identify idiots and people hostile to speech. It's as close to a perfect test as can be imagined.

Ah, I see. You're one of those idiots who only understands negative liberty and not positive liberty. Idiot.

/Idiot.

casual disregard: EVERYBODY PANIC: casual disregard: Nevermind the content, depraved as it is. We just became a non-free society through this decision.

You actually believe that America is/was a FREE society? Are you that naive? Please, for the love of God, please define FREEDOM in a way that makes any sense at all, then apply it to what you see around you. This is not a free society. It isn't even a freedom-loving society. Hasn't been in many generations, if ever.

I concede that we are not now free.

USA, however, should be free, and we would be free if not for the relentless moralizers.

To me, freedom is chosen action which does not prohibit the same in my neighbor. Maybe I'm an awful farking liberal, but that's the kind of life I wish I could have. It's the kind of life I wish you could have, too.

You know, the more I read and re-read your reply, the more interesting you become. You're a good man, and I'm glad to know there are folks like you in the world. Why you and I are on fark.com - now that is the real mystery.

What a bunch of shiat.

Ah, sorry Oznog, I feel like a shiat, sorry.

Pincy: Animals can't consent.

Only if receiving.

log_jammin: casual disregard: I think you misunderstand. I'm not surprised here.

*eye roll* whatever dude. champion the rights of dog farkers, I don't really care.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have commented. As it is, you despise your fellow man.

EVERYBODY PANIC: Hmmm. I'm finally starting to enjoy this thread. Here is one man's definition of FREEDOM: The societal condition in which everybody is in full, 100% control of his/her property (which includes one's own biological self). Is that helpful? I would enjoy a converation on this much more than a thread on Brazillian fetish films.

How would you define freedom?

dopekitty74: Deman: Bumblefark: no clever name here just move along: You shouldn't go to jail for poor taste.

farking animals isn't poor taste. It's farking animals. Yes; if you have a hand in that, you need to go to jail. Or, an asylum. I really don't care which.

Its an abuse of a position of power/authority over a sentient being in the worst way.

Pfft.. I'm sure the male dogs farking the girls in the videos are SO traumatized

/eyeroll
//not my thing, but i've seen enough of those sorts of stories floating around to know that some women ARE into it, and in a big way

The dogs enjoying it doesn't make what I said any less true.

spman: I'm saying it should be illegal because it's a dangerous activity that can't be done safely. If you eat, or hell just come in contact with human waste, at least in the sort of manner that you would in a porno, you WILL get sick, possibly fatally so. .